2020 (10) TMI 80 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 154 - deduction u/s 80IA - HELD THAT - We hold that deduction u/s 80IA is to be allowed from the gross total income and should not be restricted to the net business income of the assessee. Such an issue cannot be decided in the proceedings u/s 154 as only such mistakes which are apparent from the record can be rectified and the law is clear that deduction u/s 80IA is to be allowed from the gross total income. Therefore, there is no mistake apparent from the record which needed rectification u/s 154 of the Act.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Restriction of deduction under Section 80IA to business income.
3. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
4. Taxability of dividend income.
5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee challenged the rectification order passed under Section 154, arguing that the issue was debatable and thus not rectifiable under this section. The CIT(A) upheld the rectification, stating there was no debatable issue. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd and T.S Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers, held that only glaring and apparent mistakes can be rectified under Section 154. Since the method of quantification of deduction under Section 80IA was debatable, it could not be rectified under Section 154. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground, stating that the issue involved a mixed question of fact and law, making it unsuitable for rectification under Section 154.

2. Restriction of Deduction under Section 80IA to Business Income:
The assessee argued that the deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed from the gross total income, not just the business income. The Tribunal agreed, citing previous decisions and the provisions of Section 80IA(5), which mandate that the deduction should be computed on a standalone basis for each eligible unit. The Tribunal referenced multiple cases, including CIT vs. Dewan Kraft Systems Ltd and Punit Construction Co, where it was held that losses from other units should not be set off against the profits of eligible units. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the deduction to business income and allowed the deduction from the gross total income.

3. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:
The assessee did not press this ground of appeal during the hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected this ground as not pressed.

4. Taxability of Dividend Income:
Similar to the disallowance under Section 14A, the assessee did not press this ground of appeal. The Tribunal, therefore, rejected this ground as not pressed.

5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):
The assessee did not press this ground either. The Tribunal rejected this ground as not pressed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the grounds related to the rectification under Section 154 and the restriction of deduction under Section 80IA. It held that the issue of deduction under Section 80IA was debatable and thus not rectifiable under Section 154. Additionally, the Tribunal confirmed that the deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed from the gross total income, not restricted to business income. The other grounds were rejected as not pressed by the assessee. The appeal was partly allowed.